GUL MARJAN vs THE STATE and 2 others
The petitioner, Gul Marjan, sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under Section 324/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following the refusal of bail by the lower courts. The petitioner's counsel argued for bail based on the existence of a cross-version case and the discrepancy between the number of accused persons charged and the single injury sustained by the victim. The complainant's counsel opposed the application, contending that the cross-case was fabricated, the injury was caused by blunt means, and the injury in the cross-case was simple and on a non-vital part of the body. Upon examination, the Court observed that the victim, a minor, sustained a firearm injury on the neck, a vital part of the body, with the bullet still lodged inside. The Court held that the nature of the injury demonstrated a clear intent to kill, rendering the technical arguments regarding the cross-case and the number of injuries secondary. Consequently, the Court refused to grant bail, emphasizing the brutal nature of the attempt on the victim's life.
- Does the existence of a cross-version case automatically entitle an accused to bail?
- Is a discrepancy between the number of accused and the number of injuries sufficient to grant bail in an attempt to murder case?
- Does a firearm injury on a vital part of the body preclude the grant of bail even if technical arguments regarding the case are raised?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
'ATTAULLAH KHAN, J.---Petitioner, namely, Gui Madan, seeks his release on bail after refusal of the same relief by the learned lower Courts, in case F.I.R. No,12 dated 3-2-2310 under section 324/ 34, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station, Dadiwala District Lakki Marwat.
2. Arguments heard and record perused.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that according to final report dated 4-2-2010 submitted by the Investigating Officer there is another cross version in F.I.R. No,22 of the same date, therefore, on this ground the petitioner is entitled to bail. He further argued that there is only one would on the body of victim while four persons have been charged, therefore, the case of petitioner is of further inquiry.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for complainant submitted that the alleged cross case is concocted because as per report of the doctor the injury caused by blunt means. According to him the injury is caused by blunt means. According to him the injury in the cross-case is on non-vital part of the body of the victim and is simple. He further argued that this Court has refused bail in similar case by not believing the existence of cross-case. He relied upon 2010 PLR 41.
5. I have gone through above-mentioned case law. In the said reported case cross-case was not believed. Similarly, difference between number of injuries and number of accused, was also not accepted. In the case in hand it is yet to be decided that the other case is cross-case or not.
Moreover, injury in that case is simple and not on the vital part.
6. The victim Hanifullah is present in the Court. His neck is covered with piaster. The fire-arm injury is on left side of his neck having size of 1/3 x 1/3 inch. The bullet is still inside and so far not extracted.
He seems to be under treatment. The victim is aged about 14/15 years. The injury on the neck of the victim shows that the intention of the accused was definitely to kill him because the injury is on the most vital part of the body.
7. Keeping in view the injury on the neck of the victim it is a case of brutal attempt at his life. This particular circumstances, the technicalities, if any, are ignorable.
8. Keeping in view the above discussion I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner and petition is rejected accordingly.